Only valid for active forum users. Active means at least 30 postings within the last 30 days (no spam postings). This will automatically being checked at www.starbike.com shopping basket so make sure that you are logged in at the WW board!If there does not appear a WW discount position when you check out you do not have enough postings!

Received the first draft of the design and geometry today. We're making a few minor adjustments based on my fitting and the builder's concepts. I'll post final geometry once we've reached a consensus. I have to admit, I like actually working with someone to build MY bike, rather than buying parts to get the best fit to a stock frame. This is going to be fun even if not the lightest bike I've ever owned.

Option 1 calls for a 983mm wheelbase with a 554mm effective top tube and a 120mm stem to get my ideal position.

Option 2 call for a 1002mm wheelbase with a 574mm effective top tube and a 110mm stem to get my ideal position.

The first would probably result in a more nimble handling bike with a slightly forward center of gravity, very similar to the Ghisallo I am riding now (975mm wheelbase, 555mm top tube, 120mm stem). This was the initial geometry proposed by the builder.

The second would be a more stable handling bike, keeping my center of gravity further behind the front wheel. This was after some revisions based on my fitting data.

So do I stick with what's familiar or go with something new based on the fitting?

That's the direction I'm leaning toward, but I'm still uncertain. I've never ridden a bike with a wheelbase that long before. I know it's not the difference between a sport bike and a chopper, but it seems pretty dramatic. Maybe I'm the one being dramatic? hahaha

How does a 20mm variation in wheelbase and toptube and only 10mm in stem correction add up? Am I missing something?

Slightly OT but shouldn't these questions be asked-to and answered-by the builder? He's (probably) got more experience than you and should be able to take your description of how you want the bike to ride and turn it into reality. That's why he's paid the bigbucks.

Yah, the bb drop and the angles have to be different too to get that reach. I bet he changed at least the sta or hta and probably the rake and/or bb drop.

I don't think its going to be as dramatic unless he did that. My cross bike has the same sta, hta, and all that as my road bike, but it has a different fork rake and 25mm longer chain stays. Its not as nimble, but it takes a specific kind of turn/hill for that to matter. Lots of people I know race their cross frames in crits and do very, very well so I doubt it will stop you, as a recreational rider, from having a bike you really love. I'd go with what you know and already like.

I have been discussing it with the builder. He is great... very proactive and very responsive. I was just looking for additional input.

I wish I could post the proposed geometries but they are PDF files.

There is a 1cm change in reach between the two proposed geometries. Both share the same hta and sta. My fit numbers called for a 714mm horizontal (virtual) reach from saddle center (sit bones) to stem clamp (handlebar tops). This translated to a 720mm actual (angled) reach. My current setup has 710mm actual reach with a 120mm stem and 550mm top tube. I can't move my seat any further back to get the extra centimeter. The builder used this initial geometry for the first draft of the build plan but I asked him to work in the desired 720mm reach with a 110mm stem. I suspect the right answer is to keep the 120mm stem and get the 720mm actual reach using that instead of the 110mm stem. That gives me the appropriate reach and keeps the wheelbase shorter.

I'll try and post the two geometries for others to see. Again, I trust the builder's judgement more than my own. But I like running my ideas past people to get their opinions. You never know if I may come up some brilliant idea the builder hadn't thought of... not likely, but possible.